Here's an interesting story from the AP today. As posted by Yahoo News:

Churches in five big U.S. cities plan to protect illegal immigrants from deportation, offering their buildings as sanctuary if need be, as they pressure lawmakers to create a path to citizenship for the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

Beginning Wednesday, a Catholic church in Los Angeles and a Lutheran church in North Hollywood each intend to shelter one person, and churches in other cities plan to do so in coming months as part of the "New Sanctuary Movement."

"We want to put a human face to very complex immigration laws and awaken the consciousness of the human spirit," said Father Richard Estrada of Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church in Los Angeles, where one illegal immigrant will live.

Organizers don't believe immigration agents will make arrests inside the churches.

Offered without comment, as I'm not near smart enough to figure out what to do about illegal immigration.

I don't tend to ride the fence on many issues, but I've never really decided how I feel about hate crime legislation. On one hand, I definitely understand the argument of groups like the Human Rights Campaign, which states:

Bias-motivated violent crime affects an entire community. A hate crime occurs when the perpetrator of the crime intentionally selects the victim because of who the victim is. While violent hate crimes are a widespread and serious problem in our nation, it is not the frequency or number of violent hate crimes alone that distinguishes these acts of violence from other types of crime. A random act of violence resulting in injury or even death is a tragic event that devastates the lives of the victim and their family, but the intentional selection and beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes an entire community and sometimes the nation.

I find that statement perfectly reasonable and fairly compelling. However, I can also see the other side of the issue. From an article on The Lufkin Daily News site:

"Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee.

Under this bill, he noted, criminals who kill a transvestite would be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer.

"This bill allows different penalties to be imposed for the same crime," said Smith. "We cannot legislate the hatred that some feel in their hearts. We need fewer labels and more unity in this country."

Good point. Isn't a murder always a murder? Is a criminal who shoots someone for his iPod worthy of a lesser punishment that one who shoots someone because he's gay? It's not like the guy who kills a gay person is not going to be punished at all - he'll still be tried and hopefully convicted of murder.

So I'm torn. And honestly, I think I'm OK riding the fence on this one. I'll leave it to people smarter than me to decide.

That being said, one aspect of this I've never considered is that this legislation is somehow a punishment against Christians, but that's what some people are saying. From the Lufkin article above:

The legislation is also opposed by some black ministers, who said it could be used to punish them for preaching against the so-called sinfulness of homosexuality, lest their words lead to a member of their congregation committing a violent act against a gay person even though they did not advocate such an act.

"As an African American, I have long questioned the attempts of the homosexual community to piggyback on the legislative breakthroughs blacks have achieved in civil rights," said Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Washington, D.C. The legislation "will bring the threat of invasive, governmental interference with the doctrines and practice of the church."

"As some homosexual activists chant, 'Stay out of our bedrooms,' we are here to say 'Stay out of our pulpits,'" said Jackson, standing outside the Capitol with a half dozen other African American ministers.

Ok then. You may be wondering how this legislation will affect his ministry, and I don't have any answers for you. Aside from pointing out the fact that the man is a blantant partisan, as you can see from looking at articles he has written like Blacks should vote for George W. Bush, in which he expresses his desire for "the development of a 'kingdom agenda' instead of a limited 'conservative' versus 'liberal' approach to the woes of our society." So he's not concerned about being punished so much as he just wants what he believes to be the law.

I think the most bizarrely worded objection came from Texas Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas (again from the Lufkin article):

Opponents said the bill will have the effect of stifling sermons against homosexual practices.

The bill is "an effort to silence people who have religious beliefs to step forward and say something is wrong," said Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.

Gohmert said the legislation is being advanced "by people who don't understand the Christian heart."

Christians believe you can love the sinner while hating the sin, he said. So ministers can preach against homosexuality while loving — not hating — gay people, he said.

Do I even need to bother to shoot this one down? This legislation says nothing about preaching against homosexuality (or anything else on the list they object to), and in fact it specifically mentions that it is not going to "prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution." Read the bill itself here.

As I said, this is a complex issue, and I don't know that there will be a clear answer anytime soon. What I do know is that the notion that Christians are somehow victimized by this legislation is ludicrous.

A freshman at Hanover Central High School in Indiana was sent home on Wednesday and Thursday for displaying a pentagram on her cheek when she showed up for class. She relented and stayed home today (Friday).

At first glance this sounds like some reckless behavior on the part of the school, especially in light of the fact that students are not sent home on Ash Wednesday (where Christians typically have dots or crosses marked on their foreheads with ash). But the principal actually has a pretty compelling argument, which for some reason isn't mentioned in the three articles covering the story I linked to above. From the Indianapolis Star:

Andy Pecenke (the father) said he was upset because the school district doesn't send students home for having ashes on their foreheads for Ash Wednesday.

Livovich (the principal) said that was different, however, because it is part of a person's faith. Livovich said he had done some research and found no indication that wearing a pentagram on the face is a part of a person's faith.

"If it was a part of her faith that everyone of her faith does this on May Day, then I would say our apologies to the child and the parent," he said. "But that isn't the case here."

It sounds like if the Christian kids show up on Good Friday with "He is risen indeed" scrawled on their faces they'd be sent home too. Despite my knee-jerk liberal tendencies, I think I'm with the school on this one.

Here's a very interesting article about the "Romeo and Juliet Effect," which is basically wanting something because you can't have it. The author discusses in particular the effect (or lack thereof) of abstinance-only sex education.

The Romeo and Juliet Effect: Why Christians Keep Having Sex Before Marriage

More to the point, I'm an Evangelical Christian and we're taught at a very young age about sexual purity. Christians aren't supposed to have sex until they are married. In recent years, many have made it official by taking a pledge of abstinence. However, studies have shown that Christians, even those that take the pledge, are just as likely to have sex as non-Christians.

People I talk to are sometimes perplexed at my stand against abstinance-only sex education, but to me it's pretty simple. Until someone can prove to me that it accomplishes anything at all, I can't stand behind something on principle alone. It's like not leaving a flooding house because you don't believe in drowning. Sometimes reality forces us to examine the situation a little differently. If abstinance-only sex ed actually results in more issues like disease and teen pregnancy (and in turn, abortion), I don't have a problem getting behind an alternative.

Just to update those who have asked (thanks for emailing by the way), unlike Pat Tillman, ChristiansWhoThink.com is not worm dirt. I'm still alive, and I'll be posting more soon, especially because the presidential campaigns are already heating up. Check back soon for more news, or subscribe to the RSS feed to be notified of new posts immediately.

Thanks!